helmet - trash or recyclable?

[OakLeaf]

So I just checked the mfg'd date of the new helmet I just bought. Its July 2007.

I'm thinking of returning the helmet for a refund.

It's the date placed in service, not the manufacture date, that's important, unless the manufacture date is a LONG time ago. If your helmet was new in box, never tried on, stored out of direct sunlight, then you still have your five years from when you first wore it.


But if you don't like the helmet anyway...

[ChickWithBrains]

Who publishes the "5 year rule?" Unless it's one of the safety regulatory agencies, you have no recourse with the manufacturer or seller of the helmet.

And why would wearing or not have anything to do with the rate at which the helmet material ages and fatigues? Of course, after any crash with head impact, a significant drop (from a shelf to the floor), etc., they need replacing because the stress can make it far less safe - but as far as inherent structure and strength, age is age. That you had it on your noggin or in a box for [x] years should make no difference.

Any thoughts?

[martinkap]

Who publishes the "5 year rule?" Unless it's one of the safety regulatory agencies, you have no recourse with the manufacturer or seller of the helmet.

The "5 year rule" is generally true and recommended by all motorcycle helmet manufacturers. So, I suspect that bicycle helmets are not different. I will try to look on internet for official suggestions...

OK - I found it:
Snell is official testing agency which gives out "snell" certifications on helmets. I believe Snell certifies the bicycle helmets also:

"Today, Arai follows the Snell Memorial Foundation’s statement on warranties in setting a baseline for our coverage parameters. Snell recommends that a helmet be replaced within five years from its date of first use, and no more than seven years from its date of manufacture."
Taken from: http://www.araiamericas.com/Arai_Wan...antieswork.asp

Snell website
http://www.smf.org/

[martinkap]

That you had it on your noggin or in a box for [x] years should make no difference.

Any thoughts?

It makes a difference. The material "styrofome" or what it is called reacts slowly with air and looses its properties. It is like saying that the tires will be good as new if they lie in the drover for 15 years. No, the material will dry out and will become old and rigid. Even if you don't ride on the tires, after 15 (or less) years they are useless. The same thing happens to helmets. The material starts to shrink and skin out. It becomes brittle and fragile. In motorcycle helmets it is even more obvious because even if you don't wear the helmet, helmet which was snug is suddenly very loose.

It is very important to exchange the helmet after 5 years mark, regardless of the wear.

That said, it is still better to have 7 years old helmet on the head than a do-rag

[Irulan]

Who publishes the "5 year rule?" Unless it's one of the safety regulatory agencies, you have no recourse with the manufacturer or seller of the helmet.

And why would wearing or not have anything to do with the rate at which the helmet material ages and fatigues? Of course, after any crash with head impact, a significant drop (from a shelf to the floor), etc., they need replacing because the stress can make it far less safe - but as far as inherent structure and strength, age is age. That you had it on your noggin or in a box for [x] years should make no difference.

Any thoughts?

UV and Ozone break down the styrofoam

[Fredwina]

The 5 year is from the Snell Foundation. Most manufactures recommend every two years.

[OakLeaf]

Yes, UV and ozone do break down the styrofoam, but unless it's stored in the sun next to an electric motor, it gets most of its damage from the oils and acids it's exposed to when it touches your hair and skin or gets sweated on.

A NOS helmet that had been on the shelf for 7 or 10 years, no, I absolutely would not wear. But if I buy one that's reasonably new, I feel perfectly safe wearing it for five years.

The only reason that manufacturers that have a pro rata trade-in program use the manufacture date, is it's the only way to verify the age of the helmet. They couldn't just take the word of the owner as to when it had been placed in service.

[withm]

Can anyone cite any references from Giro, Bell, or Trek on this concept of replacing helmets every 5 years?

I looked on the Giro website and can find no words to this effect. Seems to me this would open them up to all kinds of lawsuits if it were true and they were not publicizing this.

[OakLeaf]

It's all EPS regardless of the brand of helmet. If you're familiar with the Snell Foundation, their recommendation is good enough for me.


ETA: from Arai's website:

All Arai helmets are warranted against defects in materials and workmanship, and are serviceable only for the properly fitted* first user for 5 years from date of first use, but no more than 7 years from date of manufacture. It should be replaced within 5 years of first use.

Shoei's warranty is identical. So, they figure one of their helmets doesn't appreciably degrade over 2 years before first being placed in service.

Giro's recommendation is three years after date of purchase, not date of manufacture. Bell just says three years, without specifying when that starts. We had some discussion on this board a few months back as to whether the three years was valid (due to its being an extreme lightweight helmet) or simply a sales tactic, but in either event, it's the date of purchase that counts to them, as well.
I know that 5 years was specified on the Trek helmet I'm going to be replacing this fall - because that was the helmet I bought after a 10 year hiatus from cycling, so I actually read the instruction sheet Other than that one, I haven't read an instruction sheet recently.